Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[skweze]

Good question. Assuming they had to include that language on the basis that, in theory, an appeal could happen. But what are the realistic chances of an appeal?

It looks like the Judge disregarded most of the SAC on the grounds that it was an inappropriate attempt to re-litigate issues already decided by the Court, and what remained were a few dubious factual contentions with no real bearing on the legal issues.

Relevant parts of the ruling state:

The significant differences between Plaintiff’s FAC and SAC are few. Plaintiff has added some factual allegations from new confidential witnesses, and claims that Peregrine could have easily verified its Phase II clinical trial results after the trial was unblinded...

A considerable portion of Plaintiff’s opposition brief is dedicated to rehashing arguments the Court has already rejected. [bold added] Most significantly, Plaintiff claims that Peregrine had a duty to verify its Phase II trial results before releasing information to the public, Opp. 3:1-4:2; and argues that the “core operations” doctrine is applicable here, id 10:13-13:22. The Court hasalready considered and rejected those arguments. See Nov. 15, 2013 Order at 4-5; Aug. 13, 2013 Order at 13-15. The Court has also previously addressed Plaintiff’s claims regarding Abbvie, CSM, and individual Defendants’ compensation. See Nov. 15, 2013 Order at 7; Aug. 13, 2013 Order at 16.

The proper way to dispute the Court’s prior rulings is through a motion for reconsideration. Given that Plaintiff has not filed such a motion, the Court declines to revisit the analyses set out in its prior opinions[bold added]...

...The crux of Plaintiff’s new allegations is that Peregrine could have easily verified the results of the Phase II bavituximab trial, but failed to do so before announcing the trial’s results...These new allegations do not address the core issue in dispute...The issue is whether Defendants acted with “deliberate recklessness.”...None of Plaintiff’s new allegations are responsive to that inquiry.[bold added] Even assuming that the confidential witnesses whose statements serve as the foundation for Plaintiff’s claims are reliable, Plaintiff’s allegations fall short of anything that would support a cogent and compelling inference of scienter.[bold added]

Question for the lawyers on the board: Since it looks like the ship already sailed on the window for a "motion for reconsideration" what of the Judges final ruling could possibly be appealed? Also, could Peregrine respond to a notice of appeal with a motion for sanctions on the grounds that the incredibly disingenuous SAC constitutes frivolous or abusive process? Further, can't the Appeals Court award damages if it determines the appeal to be frivolous?

An appeal looks like a very costly proposition for the plaintiff with virtually no chance at success.

Just my humble option, but if the plaintiff tries to perpetuate an apparently untenable case via an appeal, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Did they HAVE to throw that in about the appeal? Just like them, make any good news sound bad.

Does anyone know of another stock where the CA has been dismissed to compare the 8-K's?